NY Times Scandal: Pro-War = Full Price, Anti-War = “It’s On Us”
The New York Times is a de-facto co-author of MoveOn.Org’s smear of General “Betray Us”, in that they underwrote a substantial portion of the ad’s cost - the cost that matters the most, and actually costs the most, which is the cost of priniting it in the New York Times.
“Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged “significantly more” than MoveOn.org for its ad.”
ABC News:
Does Ideology Matter in NYT ads?
September 13, 2007 10:10 AM
After I reported earlier in the week on the controversy surrounding the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times (LINK), some conservative bloggers seized upon my reporting that MoveOn.org claims to have paid about $65,000 for the full-page ad.
Many speculate (LINK) this represents a dramatic discount of normal ad rates, and today the New York Post (LINK) repeats the charge.
New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it’s Times policy to not “disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things.”
Mathis says the newspaper tries “to keep our advertising columns as open as possible” and “there are many instances when we’ve published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance that we take on our own editorial pages.” As an example of how the Times is open to all points of view in advertisers, Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, “we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom’sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org.”
Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged “significantly more” than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, “and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid,” David says.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
boycott time,,, boycott any gas station, grocery store, news stand that sells that slimey, nonnews, lieing, antitroops filth…don’t even talk to anyone reading it…
September 13th, 2007 at 9:55 amWhat i can’t understand is why NewYorkers arn’t a little more outraged by this, or taking some sort of action against the NYT.
I mean for fucks sake, you are the people who were hit on 9/11! What the fuck happened to you guys since then?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:03 amnv swabi,,, hellary and chucky,,,happened to them,,
September 13th, 2007 at 10:16 amBoycott them. Good idea. Call on all the firemen and cops in NY to rally around the flag and stick a big fucking NY finger at the NY Slimeball.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:26 amHave you seen the Times’ circulation? Nobody reads it anymore. Considering that their lifeblood is now ad revenue, it really shows how unbalanced they are. The moonbats will drive the paper into bankruptcy before actually reporting fairly and accurately.
Can’t happen soon enough, as far as I’m concerned.
@NV Sailor:
I was in Grand Central on 9/11, taking the escalator from the subway. opposite me, taking the down escalator, was a girl wearing one of those Palistinian head rags. I nearly jumped across and strangled her with it.
I had to stay away from Ground Zero. I would’ve been arrested for manslaughter after I came across the Troofers. Go to Union Square, and you’ll think you’re at Haight-Ashbury in SF.
There’s lots of sane, patriotic people, especially in the outer boroughs, but we’re outnumbered. Some days I despair for the future. Thank God for alcohol.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:28 amOk, so where is the evidence that they were overcharged? If the NYT doesn’t disclose rates, this is all speculation, right? Or does Matt David have some sort of insider information?
September 13th, 2007 at 11:35 ammove on was charged $70,000 for the ad,, and the ad normally sells for $165,000.. i think that comes to a little saving for the antitroop group,,,
September 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pmI wouldnt use that piece of trash to wipe my ass with. Thats right, my shit deserves better than that. Damn domestic insurgents.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm[…] NY Times Scandal: Pro-War = Full Price, Anti-War = “It’s On Us” — Pat Dollard […]
September 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pmUnfortunately, I think that the WaPo is worse than the NYT.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:04 pmEric:
That evidence has already been disclosed here, on the radio and on the TV. Try watching something besides CNN or MSLSD…
September 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pmEric:
“Ok, so where is the evidence that they were overcharged?”
It’s right here:
September 13th, 2007 at 7:48 pmhttp://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1332355120070913?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
But we thought that they were above the fray, objective honest reporters looking for the truth, unlike the Fox who are biased towards Bush and the conservatives.
Wow!! What hypocrisy?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:26 am